Troops Withdrawn From Iraq

Sources

The issue we analyzed was Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Fox New: Maggie
           Fox News offers a variety of different news stories. One major story that is a continuing issue is whether or not the United States’ troops should be pulled out of Iraq. The opinions on this matter spans from the idea that pulling troops out will decrease America and Iraqis’ gains from the war to pulling troops out being a victory for America.
According to Senator David Vitter and former United Nation John Bolton, the United States’ plan to pull out troop is considered a wrongdoing and troops should be kept overseas for the benefits of America and Iraq. David Vitter believes that the decision to pull troops out of Iraq is based on the sole decision of President Obama. He says that Obama is not thinking about the long term situation and he is pulling troops out for political purposes and not about national securities. However, by pulling troops out, congress’s interest will be hurt since they are the one funding and authorizing military action. Vitter believes that pulling out troops will be a victory for our nations’ enemies, and that senior military leaders supports the idea that Iraq needs a continued United States military presence. John Bolton, on the other hand, thinks that the reason that United States want to pull out their troops is because administration is getting tired of war. He believes that our nation’s troop should stay in Iraq because of the uncertainty of whether or not foreign countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria, might have nuclear weapons, posing a serious threat to our nation. Though the concerns of Vitter and Bolton are legitimate reasons that troops should not be pulled out of Iraq, the pros in pulling troops out are more highlighted by Fox News.
           Two major video clips in Fox News has Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough and former Navy Seal officer Leif Babin supporting the decision of pulling troops out of Iraq. Denis McDonough, though he is on President Obama’s administration, shows his own strong opinion on pulling troops out as the Fox News forcaster subtly tries to push a conservative view point from him. He and Leif Babin, as insiders into what’s going on in the war in Iraq, supports President Obama’s plan to pull troops out of Iraq. They believe that Iraqis are capable of taking on threats by themselves now since they have had training, partnering and operations with United States troops. Each leader in Iraq are now able to work things out civilly and not impose violence against one another. Babin further goes on about the fact that although our troops are in Iraq, it does not mean national security, which was one of David Vitter’s primary concerns about pulling out troops. With troops in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and empowered since Iranian has more power over the fate of our troop with their weapons killing our troops. On top of it, Iraqis are not granting immunity for United States troops, so that could be a sign that it is time for our troops to leave the proximity. By pulling out troops from Iraq, it is a declaration of victory for the United States.

In Fox News, the issue of pulling out troops really depends on the person who is being interviewed. For example, those more closely involved with the war in Iraq thinks that the troops are ready to be pulled out since the Iraqis have had enough training to handle the situations by themselves now. The Iraqis do no use violence to resolve conflict any longer. However, those higher forces, like the congress, thinks that the troops should be kept in Iraq since they think that President Obama’s promise to get troops out is more politically intended to draw in supporters. They think that by pulling out forces from Iraq, our nation will suffer great gains and that Iraq is not ready for our troops to leave. The issue at hand presented by Fox News has two sides to it and it all depends on who is interviewed that one side or another is supported.

October 21, 2011 - Denis McDonough
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1231215145001/white-house-defends-iraq-troop-drawdown

October 27, 2011 - Leif Babin
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1244072486001/iraq-troop-pullout-the-right-strategy

October 30, 2011 - David Vitter
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1249899949001/gop-questioning-iraq-troop-withdrawal

November 1, 2011 - John Bolton
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1253069454001/wh-considering-quicker-withdrawal-from-afghanistan


NY Times: Misha http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=obama+troops&srchst=cse

In an article from the New York Times, published on October 21st, the entire article focuses on President Obama’s announcement to pull all American soldiers from Iraq by the end of the year. However, in another New York Times article posted on October 31st, the focus of the articles on this issue were entirely centered on the troops that will remain in the Persian Gulf. The previous week, all articles related to the withdrawal, and now the emotion of the most current articles has turned into a more realistic version of the presidents promise. From analyzing a few of the New York Times’s articles, it was obvious that there was a positive slant in political views in regards to President Obama.

Numbers and statistics were used in the articles, in an attempt to prove the Presidents credibility. In addition to the factual yet hopeful views on the President fulfilling his promise to the American people, the New York Times articles put a focus on the word, ‘promise.’ Every article read in the past few weeks has in some way mentioned the president fulfilling his ‘promise’ made to the American people during his campaign. These subtle hints on the Times’s political views give readers an indication of hope that the troops will indeed be pulling out of Iraq, and that that the president will stand by his promise.

The New York Times is a highly recognized and respected article that many people listen to and turn to for political news. But what happens when articles that are supposed to be strictly factual show threads of opinion in their articles? Then the New York Times becomes yet another piece of propaganda that people will either choose to follow or choose to turn against. It may be impossible for a news source to contain no bias at all, however, the New York Times remains one source that people can turn to when they demand the facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?scp=6&sq=obama%20troops&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html?scp=2&sq=obama%20troops&st=cse

Some opinion Column: I can do opinion columns - Brian

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/24/morning-bell-obamas-iraq-failure/

I read an opinion article written by Mike Brownfield in which he details President Obama’s decision to pull the troops before December 31, 2011. At first, Obama’s announcement was seen as a heroic and monumental decision, but Brownfield suggests that it is nothing more than another failure on the part of the Obama Administration. According to Brownfield and various sources, the United States signed a contract in 2008 in which we agreed to have our troops removed from Iraq by December 31, 2011. That means President Obama did not make the decision himself, but rather was following protocol set up before he was elected president. The Obama Administration intended to renegotiate the contract with the Iraqi government to extend the stay of troops, but talks broke down when Iraq refused to give American troops immunity. After talks broke down, no further discussion was had regarding the situation.

Brownfield argues that while it is great that our troops can finally come home after nearly ten years in Iraq, we may have pulled them out too soon. Brownfield believes that we will not accomplish the necessary goals to ensure Iraqi government stability prior to December 31. If we leave before the Iraqi people are ready to rule independently we may be putting them in more danger than they were originally in. With troops being pulled, the defense against Iranian militias has been drastically weakened and we are essentially leaving them wide open for destruction.

According to Brownfield, we have also left Iraq very susceptible to attack and take over from Al Qaeda. The purpose of leaving troops in Iraq in the first place was to prevent take over of the government before it was ready to stand on its own. By pulling our troops we are abandoning the government we were left there to protect. Brownfield argues that the move by Obama is “the mark of an administration in retreat” and goes on to say that this retreat could potentially be very dangerous to Iraq and others in the Middle East.

Brownfield closes his article by explaining that no American wants to see our troops overseas longer than they need to be there. However, pulling the troops before the job is done and at a time that the region is so weak could result in the waste of billions of American dollars and the lives of our men and women who fought so hard.

Brownfield does make a comment implying Obama will simply use this feat as a boost to his re-election campaign. Overall he did a good job of stating his opinion without showing a great deal of bias. His opinion column allowed me to see the situation from another point of view and hear the argument from the other side.

Taylor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-24-2011/end-o-potamia
This is a clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from October 24th, 2011. It was in response to Obama’s October 21st announcement that all troops in Iraq will be home by the end of the year, and how certain Republican figures responded to that announcement as well.
Many people don’t keep up with politics, and often times, these late night comedy segments are where they get a lot of their political information from; information that is allowed to be very biased. In this clip from Jon Stewart, we see a comedy bit that very clearly attacks republicans, and leads viewers to believe that what Obama has said is great news. The first example of this is how Jon Stewart throws up his hands and cheers yelling, “Woo! Yes! Its over!” This comedy bit talks less about the actual story of troops being pulled from Iraq and more about mocking the republicans who oppose Obama’s announcement. In order to make a more effective argument against republicans, he pulls clips of some republicans thoughts or statements out of its full context. By doing this, he can manipulate the message that was being put out by them. Not having seen the full statements given by these republicans, I saw those clips and thought, “they sound dumb and ignorant”. But maybe if I had seen the full message they were trying to convey, I would think differently.
This clips of the republicans in the beginning never even mention the words “Iraq” or “troops”. The phrases we hear are, 1. “This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal”. 2. “I think it’s a serious mistake”. and 3. “The president has been a failure when it comes to foreign policy”. Although it is probably likely that they were in fact talking about the end of the war in Iraq, we dont know that for sure because we did not see their statement long enough to hear what they are actually talking about. The Daily show chose the segments of their clips that would make his biased comedy bit most effective.
Another piece of Jon Stewarts bit is that he brings in the fact that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by December 31st, 2011 was part George W. Bushes plan. Even this piece has been twisted to be in favor of Obama and supporting Democrats. Steward presents this piece of evidence as a way of trying to prove that the Republicans previously mentioned are dumb for being against Obama’s decision because Bush had already signed it. However, even when using this evidence, Stewart is praising Obama for his decision to pull the troops, even though all he did was stick to Bush’s plan. It could be a situation where he praises the fact the the time has come that Bush had decided on, but instead, we are pushed to believe that Obama has fulfilled his promise and has done such a great thing on his own.
Finally, he makes fun of these republican view points by mocking what they said into a ‘country hick’ voice and interprets what they said in a way that makes them appear uniformed and stupid.

Analysis- Larisa- Analysis-

The one thing that remains the same throughout these different news-medias’ presentations of the news about Obama withdrawing troops from Iraq, is that the news is delivered in a format where the opinions guide the story. The facts in all of the deliverances of this news are not simply placed in front of the reader, the reader is given the facts through other’s opinions about the facts. The difference between the news sources however is the different amount of exposure to the opinions of opposing view-points. Fox News represented both sides of the spectrum the most evenly compared to the other news sources. Their interviews expressed sentiments for and against Obama’s decision to withdrawal troops from Iraq. Compared to Fox News, The New York Times seemed incredibly biased in their reportings, showing mainly sources that reflected positively upon Obama’s decision. These main sources for news being conveyed through mostly the opinions of others seems to be reflected in the media outlets that are supposed to be opinion based, such as blogs and comedy shows. The blog and John Stewart seemed to have a positive outlook about the troops being withdrawn. This positive reflection is interesting and reveals a lot about the effect that the major news sources have on other media outlet’s opinions. The ideology of these news sources is conveyed through the opinions of others they choose to show. By revealing opinions from both ends of the spectrum, Fox News seems to have the most unbiased view of this issue, while the New York Times only reflects a more liberal ideology by only conveying the opinions of those who feel positively about this withdrawal. The people in charge of managing these types of media uses different types of rhetoric such as their word choice and the quotes they choose to include to convey their opinion while delivering the news. Fox News was the most effective and professional when reporting on Obama’s decision to withdrawal troops from Iraq. By showing one side, The New York Times seems very biased and you can tell that the newspaper has a liberal ideology. The rhetoric devices used by the more opinion based news outlets, such as comedy, like in John Stewart are effective in conveying the ideology of the show because it catches the viewer’s attention. However, this shouldn’t be considered a necessarily reliable source of news because whilst the facts are all correct, the humor can sway a viewer’s interpretation of the news. This is also true of blogs, because the strong opinions of blog writers overshadow the actual facts.

Position-
        The fact that opinions are so visible and obvious, even in major news sources is very detrimental to the reliability of our news. Major news sources such as Fox News and The New York Times are giving the news by showing people’s reactions to the facts. This display of other’s opinions affects how other’s interpret the news, which causes our society to think less for themselves and become reliant on the opinions and thoughts of others. The two opinion based sources we observed both seemed to have a positive position on this situation in Iraq which was interesting considering the major news source (The Time’s) was slanted towards a more positive view on the troops being withdrawn from Iraq. Basically, in order for our society to interpret and form their own opinions, the news should stray away from being so blatantly obvious about their personal ideologies.

Our group was Taylor Wichrowski, Misha Miar, Brian Miller, Margret Ung and Larisa Pyskir